Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Robin Stalbaum SOC 545 Critical Analysis Paper 12/8/2005 Victim Blaming and Policing Domestic Violence: The Role of Attributions Women victimized by domestic violence and those who advocate for them have long recognized the problem of “blaming the victim” in the criminal justice response to this crime. Given strong support in U.S. society for tough sanctions against violent criminals and the expectation that the police and all of the criminal justice system will act to punish violent crime, it seems counter-intuitive that in the enforcement of some crimes victims report experiencing blame for their victimization throughout their exposure to the justice justice system. This paper examines the literature regarding attributions made by police actors in the process of responding to reports of domestic violence. This review of the literature, along with the author’s own observations of a police domestic violence unit, reveal a pattern in attributions suggesting that attributions as to whether a victim is “good” or “bad” are decisive in determining blame in these incidents, possibly even more so than evidence of a crime. Further research is needed to examine patterns in attributions based on the characteristics of all actors in such a situation. In addition, a meta-analysis of the existing literature is suggested in order to integrate findings from the sociological and psychological literature. Introduction Domestic violence, defined here as acts of violence or intimidation against a current or former spouse or intimate partner, seems to present a particular problem in the area of policing. Since the reconstruction of domestic violence as a social problem during the Women’s Movement of the 1970’s, legislation has been introduced to address the previous failure of law enforcement agencies to respond to these crimes. This legislation seemed to produce additional problems for domestic violence advocates to tackle, such as an increase in arrests of women as well as men for these crimes, and reports from women of unfair treatment or ‘blaming the victim’ in their contacts with the justice system. 1 The purpose of this paper is to examine both whether victim blaming occurs in a particular stage of criminal justice response, and to offer an explanation for this occurrence. For the purposes of this work, victim blaming is described as any attribution of blame to the victim by criminal justice actors that appears to have a determinant effect on the outcome of a criminal justice response. The situation to be examined is the response of police units to a domestic violence complaint. This stage is of critical importance in that it is often the first contact situation the victim has with a representative of the criminal justice system. How important is the decision-making of any police officer in a given situation? A common perception may be that the role of the police agent is a simple one; he/she is to enforce the law and catch the “bad guy”. This perception assumes clear rules and a purely empirical approach by the officer in a given situation. However, the role of discretion is an extremely important one in policing (and throughout the justice system). Police have discretion in determining whether or not to invoke the law in a given situation, and in deciding how much law to invoke. Using LAPD procedure as an example, a responding officer has the choice between arrest (most extreme), crime report, or incident report (least extreme) in response to a situation. Located within these options are more subtle decisions regarding such things as who to interview, which evidence to consider, and whom to believe. It is hypothesized that attitudes commonly held by police lead to an attribution of “good” or “bad” victim by officers in these situations, and that this attribution is a guiding principle in decision-making in domestic violence cases. Review of the Literature 2 Is victim blaming a problem in domestic violence policing, or is it possible, as some argue, that women are simply equally violent in these situations, leading to a reluctance of officers to invoke the law? In a study of victims who had contact with police (Stephens and Sinden, 2000), descriptions of police response described attitudes including disbelief, minimization of the situation, and a “we don’t care” response. The author’s own observations included numerous incidents where officers referred to victims as “good” or “bad” when offering their assessment of an incident, not unlike references to “real rape” and “real victim” (Du Mont, Miller, and Myhr, 2003) as often seen in literature regarding the policing of sexual assault cases. But in the case of domestic violence, does this practice have a differential impact on women? Feld and Straus (1989) found that in DV situations minor assaults by either partner increase the probability of future major assaults on the wife by the husband, but not vice versa. In 2003, 32.3% of female murder victims were killed by husbands or girlfriends, as opposed to 2.5% of male murder victims (FBI). Even if men are subject to the same attribution process when they are victimized, the risks in cases of ineffective policing are clearly greater for women. Several studies indicate the importance of both situational and status characteristics in police response to domestic violence cases. In a study of response to black battered women as compared to other victims, Robinson and Chandek (2000) found that response to black women varied in respect to victim age, suspect age, presence of children and possibility of substance abuse. In this study, race appeared to intersect with other variables in guiding attributions of blame; in particular it was noted that presence of children and victim substance abuse (even when the suspect was under the influence) 3 each decreased the likelihood of arrest. Another study found that while male victims were attributed more blame than females, use of alcohol by the victim resulted in greater attributions of blame (Stewart and Maddren, 1997). While these studies are limited in their scope, both seem to indicate the impact of gender, race, and other factors on attributions made by police in family violence situations. Other studies specifically address the role of gender in policing. In Visher’s study (1983) of female suspects, it was shown that women who deviate from traditional, stereotypic gender roles are more likely to be arrested, and that this factor weighed more heavily for females than males in arrest decisions. A study on decision-making in the probation process (Erez, 1989) also found significant differences by sex in the factors considered by probation officers. This study similarly revealed the importance for women in behaving according to gender role expectations, and it is possible that the same or similar standards are applied to women who are victims rather than suspects. What is not clear is how much these findings are simply reflective of societal attitudes as opposed to possible differential beliefs held by police officers. A study of students (Riggs, 1997) indicated continuing social support for the gendered roles of mother as care-giver and father as breadwinner. In a study on attributions of blame to rape victims (Viki and Abrams, 2002) (also a student sample) it was found that benevolent sexism (sexist but subjectively positive towards women) was related to greater attributions of blame toward victims who violated traditional gender-role norms. Other studies of students (Cruz and DeLaMarter, 1988; Howard, 1981) found that female victims are attributed more blame than male victims in general. All of these studies, 4 though limited by their narrow samples, indicate bias in attributions of blame according to gender. But is this bias a determinant factor in policing situations? The evolution of domestic violence legislation in California seems to offer support for this hypothesis. Among the first domestic violence laws passed involved the “mandatory arrest” statute, mandating arrest in cases of injury and effectively eliminating officer discretion. This caused other problems (increase of dual arrests, arrest of victims for committing acts of self-defense) and eventually the “primary aggressor” and then “dominant aggressor” language was added to the language. Additional officer training was instituted with these statute changes; the purpose is to effectively limit and shape the role of discretion in the policing process by focusing the officers’ attention on finding out who the “dominant aggressor” in the relationship is. Included in the law are specific topics for officers to address, topics that focus on the history of the relationship rather than characteristics of suspects and victims. Other studies indicate that judgments of blame in policing may present a problem for women in family violence cases. Martin (2001) found a tendency for police to stereotype and to look not for truth but convictions in investigations. Erez (1989) suggested that a factor in probation officers gender-biased decision-making was systemic pressure from judges and prosecutors; these same pressures are likely to apply to police. Hillier and Foddy (1993) found that subjects with traditional attitudes regarding gender were more likely to attribute blame to victims, and police culture is often associated with traditional gender norms. Other studies (Buchbinder and Eisikovitz, 2004; Anderson and Umberson, 2001) have found that male suspects often present themselves as victims of a 5 biased criminal justice system, a stance that may appeal to police officers who feel forced into policing ‘family business’ and have seen fellow officers lose their jobs for behavior that was previously ignored. (This may be due to cognitive dissonance and a sort of ‘backlash’ effect; with new DV legislation many departments also instituted rules mandating arrest and firing of officer for DV, including officers who helped to cover it up. Arresting fellow officers likely caused dissonance, leading to a recasting of the batterer in the role of victim.) A combination of gender bias and bias against policing ‘personal problems’ may combine in police culture to produce increased attributions of blame to women. Studies suggest that effective police response to DV situations are significant in that may shape a woman’s willingness to cooperate with the justice system and to seek help in the future. Bui (2001) found that a failure of police to consider the offensive or defensive nature of acts of domestic violence decreased trust in the system, and these victims were less likely to pursue prosecution, essentially producing a self-fulfilling prophecy. These women are also less likely to contact police in future incidents of violence, a potentially life-threatening consequence. Finally, it has also been shown that attributions of blame in battering situations can be modified by offering information on environmental factors and promoting empathy for victims (Skiffington et al, 1984); in these situations attributions of blame were effectively directed away from dispositional causal factors and to environmental ones. This suggests that if there is a deficiency in police response to domestic violence cases that it can be resolved. Analysis 6 Howard (1994) argues a social cognitive model that that suggests an interdependence between intra-individual cognition and the social structure, with cognitions shaping and reproducing the social structure while at the same time stressing that cognitions take place in a socially situated context. The hypothesis that policing of domestic violence primarily involves judgments of “good” versus “bad” victim, producing victim blaming, relies on such a model, stressing the analytic importance of both the structure of police culture and the decision-making of individuals. Linton’s concepts of status and role can be used to understand the interaction between the individual actor (the police officer) and his/her reference group, the police and police culture. Cues as to how to act are taken from this group, and as described above, these cues include judgments regarding appropriate performance of gender roles. The police culture provides the structure of statuses (positions) and each individual officer plays out the role, or dynamics of the status. Additional cues included in this structure involve authority afforded to police officers in certain situations and pressures regarding the appropriate performance of their own duties. Police are afforded discretion to make certain decisions, and an important part of their status involves making decisions about arrest. However, the occurrence of a crime is not the only significant factor; this decision also involves whether a crime can be successfully prosecuted, and this element relates to characteristics of both suspects and victims. Additionally, stratification based on status characteristics is played out and reproduced in this system. Status characteristics theory (Berger) is a derivation of expectation states theory and rests on the notion that varying attributes coincide with widely held beliefs attaching varying status values to certain conditions of the attribute. These beliefs are embedded in 7 a culture (police culture in this instance) and these characteristics also include expectations for performance and competence. Such beliefs about diffuse characteristics (i.e. gender or race) are generalized into situations where they may not be relevant. In the hypothesis presented here, gender-role expectations become important in policing decisions, even more so than evidence of a crime. The nature of the justice system demands efficiency and therefore lends itself to stereotyping of this type, based on role schemas; police actors internalize beliefs regarding these characteristics, minimizing the cognitive effort demanded by any particular case and reducing decision-making to a narrower base of judgments. Kelley (1973) further delineated how this process plays out in the form of attributions of blame due to dispositional (internal) or environmental (external) factors. In his conception three types of information guide such attributions- context, consensus, and time. In my own observations, these characteristics seemed to interact with diffuse status characteristics to achieve a determination of “good” vs. “bad” victim in each case. More research is needed to produce models of how each characteristic is weighted in decisionmaking, and how lack of information plays into this process. However, it is proposed that a judgment of “bad” victim (violates gender-role norms) produces a situation of high dispositional attribution of blame to many women, and less law is invoked in these cases. Conclusion This review of the literature suggests a number of avenues for future study. Few studies specifically examine attributions made by police in first-response situations and/or how they may differ from attitudes found in the general public. Direct observation 8 of these situations would provide a greater depth of knowledge. In addition, the attribution process according to varying characteristics of officer, victims and suspects needs to be more carefully examined for patterns of salience/prevalence in traits judged to impact attributions of blame. Finally, a meta-analysis of the available literature would be very useful in integrating the contributions from both psychology and sociology. 9 References Anderson, Kristin L. and Debra Umberson. 2001. “Gendering Violence: Masculinity and Power in Men’s Accounts of Domestic Violence.” Gender and Society 15: 358-380. Buchbinder, Eli and Zvi Eisikovitz. 2004. “Between Normality and Deviance: The Breakdown of Batterers’ Identity Following Police Intervention.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 19: 443-467. Bui, Hoan N. 2001. “Domestic Violence Victims’ Behavior in Favor of Prosecution: Effects of Gender Relations.” Women and Criminal Justice 12: 51-75. Cruz, Maribel H. and William A. DeLamarter. 1988. “Victim Sex, Personal Similarity, and Victim Behavior: A Case of Violated Expectations.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, April 21-24, Buffalo, NY. Du Mont, Janice, Miller, Karen-Lee and Terri L. Myhr. 2003. “The Role of “Real Rape” and “Real Victim” Stereotypes in the Police Reporting Practices of Sexually Assaulted Women.” Violence Against Women 9: 466-486. Erez, Edna. 1989. “Gender, Rehabilitation, and Probation Decisions.” Criminology 27: 307-327. Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2003. “Violence Among Family Members and Intimate Partners.” Crime in the United States: Section V- Special Report. Uniform Crime Reports. Washington DC. Retrieved November 7, 2004 (http://www.fbi.gov./ucr/cius_03/pdf/03sec2.pdf). Feld, Scott L. and Murray A. Straus. 1989. “Escalation and Desistance of Wife Assault in Marriage.” Criminology 27: 141-161. Hillier, Lynne and Margaret Foddy. 1993. “The Role of Observer Attitudes in Judgments of Blame in Cases of Wife Assault.” Sex Roles: A Journal of Research 29: 629-645. Howard, Judith A. 1994. “A Social Cognitive Conception of Social Structure.” Social Psychology Quarterly 57: 210-227. ______. 1981. “Rape: The Role of Societal Norms and the Psychological Need for Control in the Attribution of Blame.” Presented at the Annual Convention of the Association for Women in Psychology, March 5-8, Boston, MA. Kelley, Harold. 1973. “The Process of Causal Attribution.” American Psychologist: 107128. 10 Martin, Dianne L. 2001. “The Police Role in Wrongful Convictions: An International Comparative Study.” Pp. 77-95 in Wrongly Convicted: Perspectives on Failed Justice, edited by Saundra D. Westervelt and John A. Humphrey. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Riggs, Janet Morgan. 1997. “Mandates for Mothers and Fathers: Perceptions of Breadwinners and Care Givers.” Sex Roles 37: 565-580. Robinson, Amanda L. and Meghan S. Chandek. 2000. “Differential Police Response to Black Battered Women.” Women and Criminal Justice 12: 29-61. Skiffington, Stephen T., Parker, James B., Richardson, Deborah, and James F. Calhoun. 1984. “The Applicability of the Empathic Set Effect to Modify Perceptions of Domestic Violence.” Social Behavior and Personality 12: 39-43. Stephens, B. Joyce and Peter Sinden. 1998. “Victims’ Voices: Domestic Assault Victims’ Perceptions of Police Demeanor.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence15: 534-547. Stewart, Anna and Kelly Maddren. 1997. “Police Officers’ Judgments of Blame in Family Violence: The Impact of Gender and Alcohol.” Sex Roles 37: 921-933. Viki, G. Tendayi and Dominic Abrams. 2002. “But She Was Unfaithful: Benevolent Sexism and Reactions to Rape Victims Who Violate Traditional Gender Role Expectations.” Sex Roles 47: 289-293. Visher, Christy A. 1983. “Gender, Police Arrest Decisions, and Notions of Chivalry.” Criminology 21: 5-28. 11